Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Summary
This chapter is in three parts. In the first section, we assess the value and the limitations
of the selfish gene and optimality views of evolution. We re-assess group selection as an
alternative to individual selection and show how the behavioural ecology approach
leads to a categorization of the major evolutionary transitions. The value of optimality
arguments can be illustrated by studies of adaptations at the behavioural, physiological
and biochemical levels.
In the second part of the chapter, we show how different kinds of questions (function
and causation) should go hand in hand in studies of behaviour.
In the final section we discuss the growth of behavioural ecology, and its expansion to
novel areas of research.
Further reading
The way in which we can move from gene dynamics to maximization and design at the
individual level is reviewed by Dawkins (1982, Chapter 10) and Grafen (2007). Provine
(1971) provides an excellent history of how Darwinism and Mendelism were seen as
competing explanations for evolution, prior to the development of theoretical population
genetics by Fisher, Wright and Haldane.
The role of group selection was recently debated by West
et al
. (2007a, 2008), Wilson
(2008) and Wilson and Wilson (2007). Bourke (2011) argues that the 'major transitions
view', framed by inclusive fitness theory and the behavioural ecology approach, provides
the most profound and scientifically satisfying vision of life's evolutionary history.
Parker and Maynard Smith (1990) discuss the pros and cons of the ESS/optimality
approach. Gould and Lewontin (1979) is a famous critique of this approach, which is
entertainingly evaluated by Queller (1995). Grafen's (1984, 1991) chapters provide an
excellent overview of the theoretical underpinnings of the behavioural ecology
approach. Alcock (2003) provides a very readable account of the controversy
surrounding the application of the behavioural ecology approach to humans. Wehner
(1987) discusses how a functional (ultimate) explanation of a behaviours can help
answer questions about the underlying causal (proximate) mechanisms.
There are a number of reviews on the implications of applying ESS thinking to
different areas, including medicine (Williams & Nesse, 1991; Nesse & Williams, 1996),
health and disease (Stearns & Koella, 2007), agriculture (Denison
et al
., 2003) and
conservation (Caro & Sherman, 2011).
